Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39267958›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Evaluation of good review practices in member authorities of the East African Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation initiative: strategies for alignment with African medicines agency.

Nancy Ngum, Margareth Ndomondo-Sigonda, Rémy Habonimana, Fred Siyoi, Clarisse Irasabwa, Julia Ojukwu, Felchism Apolinary, Andrew Okello, Sabrina Ahmada, Stuart Walker and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nancy NgumDepartment of Clinical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Margareth Ndomondo-SigondaAfrican Union Development Agency - New Partnership for Africa's Development (AUDA-NEPAD), Johannesburg, South Africa.
Rémy HabonimanaBurundi Food and Medicines Regulatory Authority (ABREMA), Bujumbura, Burundi.
Fred SiyoiPharmacy and Poisons Board-PPB, Nairobi, Kenya.
Clarisse IrasabwaRwanda Food and Drugs Authority, Kigali, Rwanda.
Julia OjukwuDrug and Food Control Authority (DFCA), Juba, South Sudan.
Felchism ApolinaryThe Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA), Dodoma, Tanzania.
Andrew OkelloNational Drug Authority, Kampala, Uganda.
Sabrina AhmadaZanzibar Food and Drugs Authority (ZFDA), Dodoma, Tanzania.
Stuart WalkerDepartment of Clinical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Sam SalekDepartment of Clinical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The East African Community Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation (EAC-MRH) programme was established to address challenges faced by national regulatory authorities (NRAs) of the region. Work sharing through joint assessments and inspections was adopted to manage limited resources and capacity; however, NRA good review practices (GrevP) are also a key determinant to success. This study evaluated GReVP among the EAC-MRH NRAs and mapped required strategies for countries to align themselves with the African Medicines Agency (AMA). Methods: A validated questionnaire (Optimising Efficiency in Regulatory Agency-OpERA) that standardises and captures review processes was completed by the head of the medicines registration division in each NRA. A country report based on the completed questionnaire was developed for each NRA and validated by the heads of the respective authorities. Results: The population and size of the NRAs vary and four of the countries have semi-autonomous authorities and three NRAs are autonomous. The Burundi and South Sudan authorities were fully government funded, Kenya and Uganda entirely from fees, while Rwanda, Tanzania and Zanzibar were partially funded from different sources. All authorities except South Sudan, which does not receive or review applications had backlogs. Authority fees varied based on the different application categories. Key milestones for standardised regulatory processes are implemented in all authorities. Queue times range from a few weeks to about one year. Three NRAs use internal technical agency staff for scientific assessments and three use both internal and external experts. Clock stop time varies and target timelines for review committee range from one day to three months. All the NRAs implement some best practices on quality measures, transparency and communication. Some have activities for transparency improvement but with minimal attention to training and education. Most employ some quality decision-making practices. Discussion: GrevP in EAC-MRH NRAs still needs to be improved and it is imperative that these authorities streamline and harmonise their practices. Increasing human resources and an investment in training and education of staff will enable the implementation of all measures for GRevP. This is vital, as the effectiveness and efficiency of the AMA will depend on the strength of these NRAs.

Indexed as

African Medicines Agency (AMA)East African Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation (EAC-MRH)good assessment proceduregood review practicesregulatory reliance

Identifiers

PMID39267958
PMCPMC11391932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.